Had a good meeting today with my research group this morning. I feel so lucky to be associated with a group of such people. I hold each of them in high regard. Anyhow, that's sort of beside the point of this post. As I presented and we discussed the current status of my work we came back to one item several times. What is a board game mechanic? For some of you, this may seem like a silly question, and in some respects maybe it is. I can tell you only of my own personal experience with this topic.
Over the last 15 or so months I have often pondered this question. I have found several definitions during that period of time. Few of them agree and none of them really satisfy my itch.
There is of course the Wikipedia definition — "Game mechanics are constructs of rules intended to produce a game or gameplay." The Wikipedia entry goes on to outline all kinds of rather muddled and confused concepts. While there is good information here, it seems to never really satisfy my definition of a "definition."
On BoardGameGeek.com there are all kinds of lists of mechanics and discussions about mechanics. But, where is the definition?
I have perused quite a few very fine books on the topic of game design. Most of them use the term but never provide a definition. I presume it's assumed the reader knows what a game mechanic is. And indeed most game designers regardless of their level of experience could rattle off a list of game mechanics. Most could also describe what the point to each mechanic is or how it might be used in a game. But, I'm less convinced that each would corroborate each others actual definition of what a mechanic is. Being able to list examples of a type of thing is not the same as being able to provided a definition of a type of thing.
Lewis Pulsipher offers a definition in his book "Game Design: How to Create Video and Tabletop Games." And it's a fine definition. As you might guess... I'm still not satisfifed. Pulsipher's definition is much like Wikipedia's. "game rules..." "methods..." and "for example..." Why am I not satisfied? Well, I guess these only seem to hit at the surface. Again referencing rules and listing examples.
In his book "Eurogames," Stewart Woods offer perhaps the most useful discussion of mechanics that I have found. And indeed Woods states quite clearly that even amongst the experts there is not much of a consensus. Woods uses terms like "semantic confusion" and "in a vague sense." So, it seems that I am not alone in my quandary.
This is likely to be a long and off/on pleasant journey for me. I like ambiguity. I wouldn't be much of a designer if I didn't. I know what my personal definition of a game mechanic is. But, I'm not going to share it... hehe. Oh sure someday... and maybe soon... but not today. For today I will wrap myself in this lovely robe of warm fuzziness that is ambiguity and ask you... what exactly is a game mechanic?
My knee-jerk response is to say that a game mechanic is a use case: a process of interactions between an actor and the game system to achieve a goal.
ReplyDeleteThat's not too far of from Wood's general take on the subject.
Delete(Mmmm. Ambiguity. I sometimes tell people that the purpose of a BA is to control--but not necessarily eliminate--ambiguity.)
ReplyDeleteMany designers embrace ambiguity as part of their process and personal design philosophy. I guess I probably fall into that camp. I like the idea of controlling ambiguity -- I've never really thought of it in quite those terms.
DeleteGiven the fundamental ambiguity of language, especially of English because it incorporates so many additions from other languages, ANY definition of any complexity is likely to be fuzzy to some.
ReplyDeleteThere are premises that are fundamental to mathematical proofs (such as, the shortest distance between two points is a line) that cannot be proved though they can be defined. I suspect "game mechanic" is something that cannot be perfectly defined but can be a useful notion.
In the end, if everyone agrees that something is a mechanic, it is. Perhaps that's why "definitions" of mechanic use examples. I confess, I was more interested in helping those who didn't know what a game mechanic was, than in trying to actually define the term.
Almost all definitions are fuzzy. In this wise, my glossary entry is sufficient for most, I think, though it leaves room for "edge cases".
I was very pleasantly surprised to see your comment on this today. I think for many purposes your definition works fine. But, for the research I am doing I'm probably going to have to develop a working definition of my own. Somewhat towards that end I am hoping to do some interviews with board game designers over the summer.
DeleteGood luck, Gary. The reason I prefer descriptions to definitions is that, at some low level, all you can do in a definition is substitute another word (that then is subject to the same problems) - for example "method" for "mechanic". A dictionary typically actually does this a lot, but there's no way around it, the hope is that the substitute word will satisfy.
ReplyDeleteRecursion: noun. See recursion.
DeleteGood one.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid (say 50 years ago) I had an encyclopedia in which Hurricane just said "See Tornado", and Tornado just said "See Hurricane". Or at least, that's how I remember it.
I would define a "game mechanic" as "Any system or set of systems designed to control what is possible in a game"
ReplyDeleteNathan, you've pretty much substituted "system" for "mechanic", which is made more complicated by the computer/systems analysis use of the word "system," that is about a whole, not about individual parts.
ReplyDeletePerhaps. I don't think that it makes it wrong. Systems can be subsets of larger systems. The brakes on a car are a system. The Car itself is a system that contains the brakes as a subsystem, as well as various other systems that make the whole work.
DeleteThe English language, for good or ill, has many words with very similar meanings. The major deference is context. If I'm talking about a game, I use the term game mechanic. If I'm talking about how a car works I use the term systems.
Maybe a better approach to defining the term would be something like "a subsystem used 'within the context' of a game system."